Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem with 40K for competitive play is not the core rules, it is the points values and special rules in the codexes.

Kilkrazy wrote:

This double failure is exactly what GW have been doing, and their explanation is not that they screwed up the rules and testing, it is that their customers have f*cked up on playing.

For the umpteenth time, I would like a non-competition player to explain why having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz is worse than not having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz (or whatever is beardy cheeze spam build of the month.) [/rhetorical]

As I am a non-competition player myself, I will take the liberty of answering.

It isn't, it's better.

GW seems to have some sort of weird honor system that precludes them from maxing out the best units. They even mention in the new DA FAQ that opponents are honor-bound not to give themselves advantages over their opponents.

I thought the whole point was to get an advantage so you could try to win the game. Who on earth plays for the draw, or likes getting their behind kicked in?

Anyways, is this an online article? I'd like to read it myself.

I can't remember where I read the article. It was in a magazine a long time ago. Possibly it may be available online since SJG is still going strong.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

GW seems to have some sort of weird honor system that precludes them from maxing out the best units. They even mention in the new DA FAQ that opponents are honor-bound not to give themselves advantages over their opponents.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. I wonder if it's a British thing or something.

the uk events were full of 9 obilts and 4 heavy choices when iron warriors were king.

To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

Kilkrazy wrote:To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

What he said. Just you wait, in the next edition there'll be a magic item that forces your opponent to make you tea.

Kilkrazy wrote:To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

I think I get it.

That's why GW can't fathom why we Americans are always asking them to be a referee.

open_sketchbook wrote:I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player. I've been playing since around my tenth birthday, I've played all the major Warhammer games and all the specialist games, I've got two armies over three thousand points right now. I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends. I've played all of three or four, and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Competive, rude and arrogent players obsessing over minute details and caring only about the hot builds is frankly a bit pathetic. It's a game. It's supposed to be enjoyed. I know I'm not one of that sort of gaming in the first place, as despite the obvious tactical drawbacks, I rank my troops up on the field because it looks awesome, and I play mechanized space marines because it's really really fun, but, damn.

I still win a lot of games. I lose a lot too. And you know what? I really, really enjoy myself. So do the people I play with, so do the people watching the game.

Then, I watch tourney guys freak out over each new list, whine every single time a new army or edition comes out, constantly threaten to 'leave the hobby' if things don't go their way, then have the nerve, the fracking nerve, to tell me I play the game wrong, and that I'm not a "true fan".

We play a game decided by random number cubes. Tactics and strategy and uber-lists and whatever take you as far as the table edge and turn one, and after that it's in the hands of fate and nobody else. Trying to pack your mathematically optimized lists and 'winning is everything' mentality into the game is maybe the reason you don't enjoy it, far beyond and above any broken lists and cheap builds. Munchkin play is condemned in role-playing games, but power gaming is seen as some sort of ultimate goal in GW games for some reason. Really, it's just sad. Win, lose, whatever, enjoying yourself is the most important part. If Orks are always going to win, FINE. Play Orks if you NEED to win, and know you're going to have to switch when the new hot crap is out. Get frustrated? Maybe you're just in the wrong damn hobby.

thats exactly my take on it. theres no reason to get THAT worked up over it.i remember once i played a small tournament made up by a group of friends. i was doing well until i hit a match with my renegades that i had to siege a SM bunker. at the time we didnt all think about the fact that the defenders should have less points because they were behind walls and bunkers. i got my ass handed to me good in that game. i lost the tourny but i didnt care it was really fun. even AFTER we thought "hey i should of had more to work with" i wasnt mad. the next time we knew.
i enjoy modeling the minis as much as playing. i dont really care if i win, lose, or slaughter. as long as im playing im enjoying it

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with 40K for competitive play is not the core rules, it is the points values and special rules in the codexes.

Well, I can think of a couple core rules that really hurt competitive play (kill points in particular).

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Personally, I think a Tau army that has to rely mostly on its troops without as much Heavy support is at a much greater relative disadvantage than an Ork army without any heavy support with tons of troops. Certain armies have absolutely amazing troops (Orks, CSM) others have very mediocre troosp (Tau, IG)

Vaktathi wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Personally, I think a Tau army that has to rely mostly on its troops without as much Heavy support is at a much greater relative disadvantage than an Ork army without any heavy support with tons of troops. Certain armies have absolutely amazing troops (Orks, CSM) others have very mediocre troosp (Tau, IG)

And having two hammerheads instead of three is no big deal. Heck, I only field 2 hammerheads at 1750 anyway.

I love this thread.
GW: "Let's start a low class racing circuit. Hondas, stationwagons, your mom's sunday grocery car. But let's have a Formula 1 racing car too. But, tell the Formula 1 drivers that, on their honor, they can't go over 70 mph."

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Personally, I think a Tau army that has to rely mostly on its troops without as much Heavy support is at a much greater relative disadvantage than an Ork army without any heavy support with tons of troops. Certain armies have absolutely amazing troops (Orks, CSM) others have very mediocre troosp (Tau, IG)

And having two hammerheads instead of three is no big deal. Heck, I only field 2 hammerheads at 1750 anyway.

Doc. You cannot be this dense. Orks and marines have heavy weapons in troop squads. Tau do not. Simple as that.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with 40K for competitive play is not the core rules, it is the points values and special rules in the codexes.

Well, I can think of a couple core rules that really hurt competitive play (kill points in particular).

Kill points are a badly thought out rule, no doubt.

If you're thinking of Tau's gundrone problem, that can easily be fixed by a new codex or even just an FAQ that clarifies gundrones do not count for kill points.

Hi agian.
If you play 40k as a way to produce a kewl 40k war film with your friends, It works ok!(And can be alot of fun!)
In fact it always did work better as a story telling with 3D props venture.

However as times and the target demoghraphic changes , GW and the devs didnt re-inforce their games unsuitability for competative play.As this would hurt sales.(All the 'game supliment' element was dropped from WD.)

GW actualy removed most of the stuff that gave 40k its RPG feel,to try to get better balance.(Actualy to increrase minature count IMO.)

And as the Codex books have PV and force composition , its not hard to see why gamers think 40k SHOULD be suited to competative play.

At least in 5th ed rule book Alessio (SP) actualy states that 40k isnt geared to competative play.

However I am appauled that the GW devs break the golden rule of game development, 'if you have not played it, dont put it in the book !'

If in a Codex they just put the number of units they ACTUALY play tested.Eg if they only ever played games with ONE Lootas mob then put (0-1) next to the entry.At least then gamers will know that taking 3 lootas mobs might be unballancing!

We could then use this as a guide for more competative games knowing what the devs actualy play tested!

The 40k rule set is just not written to be able to easily arrive at fixed comparative values .(I have a susspicion this is done on purpose, so the devs can argue oppinoins and not have to defend 'poor' PV allocation.)

EG AV mechanic, All hits of a strenght that beat the AV values of the vehicle have the same chance of causing the same dammage.
If you beat the AV by 1 or 10 the effects are the same .

The AP system means that the effectivness of weapons and armour are totaly dependant on whats on the table .
Even taking averages the efficiency jumps from AS to AS are non-lineir.(Appx 15% to 80 % efficiency jumps!)

Other rule sets use ther simple system of deducting the Armour value/resistance to damage, from the strenght of hit to determine damage to the target.

EG strenght of hit - armour value = result on target.
So a armour value 1 reduces the effects of ALL hits by 1.An armour value of 4 reduces the effect of all hits by 4.So all armour values give graduated even proportional results vs all weapons.

Also most games developed for compatative play use the same stat line across ALL units.So all units can be compared directly .
(Avoid the MC vs vehicle disparity for example.)

EG.
Movment (and type )
Armour (on seperate facings for large targets.)
Hit points.(wounds -structure points -life points- whatever you want to call them, how much damage the unit can take.)
(Size.)
(Awarness.)
Moral
(Command)
Weapon ranges.
Weapon effects

The stats in () are optional to allow for 'fog of war' and 'command and control' elements into the game.
Alot of newer games (post 1990) use unit cards to keep all the individual units game info close to hand, in a gamer friendly way.
(AT 43 does this realy well IMO.)

Anyhow, is you want a wargame suited to ballanced competative play , dont look to GW for an answer.

TTFN
Lanrak.

fitzeh wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

What he said. Just you wait, in the next edition there'll be a magic item that forces your opponent to make you tea.

Now that is the first sensible thing I've read.

And to the rest of you, if it really, really matters that much, why bother playing in the first place? There is every chance you won't win, no matter which list you chose. And I love the intimation that the people who fielded the winning armies only won because they fielded the winning armies. There is a certain circular logic to that I simply have to admire for it's sheer mind boggling inanity.

Have you stopped for even one second to consider that the people who won might just have deserved it, and done so through tactical and strategic thought? Is their list really that beardy, who is to say? Oh, of course, the people with an inflated opinion of themselves who don't win, ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the winner is a) Cheesey) b) Cheated c) Is in with the Refs.... Choose as many of those as you like, I think all absolve you of having put a foot wrong. I mean, where would the world be if people admitted their shortcomings?

The whole point of these games, besides making the manufacturer money of course, is to allow the players to while away some hours doing something the enjoy. Me? I enjoy knocking up a random army list that fits into my idea of how the army should look. I then collect it, paint it, and field it. From then on, I prefer the onus to be on me to win with tactics rather than special rules and obvious combos. But some people prefer Tournaments. Hardly my cup of tea, but each to their own in the end.

HOWEVER. If you do like going to Tournaments, surely, surely you must know that progressive generations of arseholes have degraded it from something quite good fun to a Mathammer arsefest of boring lists etc. Surely? When you are paying you £/$X entry, you must be aware you are entering a competitive environment? I am, thats why I steer clear of them and play at home and in store only. But surely that must be your aim, to get in some genuinely competitive games? SO WHY COME ON HERE AND WHINGE WHEN YOU GET YOUR ARSE HANDED TO YOU? It's like me getting into the ring with a Pro-Boxer, and complaining when I awake from my persistant vegetative state months or years later that it wasn't fair, and he only won because he was fitter, stronger, heavier and lot more experienced than me. If he hadn't been those, I'd have one, and clearly that is HIS fault....

Grow up guys, and learn to take your licks. Play with the big boys, lose like a big boy.

Doctor Thunder wrote:I can't think of any army that really "needs" that third heavy support or elites choice to be competitive.

*cough*IMPERIAL GUARD*cough*

Ditto'd John. I'd posit Tau as well. And whats an eldar list without aspects?

Ulthwe?

Targets?

Frazzled wrote:whats an eldar list without aspects?

Um, Tau?

Tau with French accents

"Go away or we will taunt you a second time."

In many ways, I think that 40k would work better if it was played by small groups of allied players facing a 'GM'-type opponent whose army is equal to the sum of the allied forces.

GW has a decent rule set, but when I sit back and look at its game and how much 'intent and interpretation' is supposed to factor in, it seems much more like a Dungeons and Dragons/unite to kill Big Bad Evil Guy than the head to head strategy shooter that it's marketed as.

But if you look at Forgeworld Books, and earlier GW Material, this is exactly what it's about.

Tournaments came later, and were laid to fill demand, not the other way around. Sure, you can play it competitively, but with the rich background you are missing on much of the joy of the game.

Why can't you all just push for some WD published tournament house rules? Surely GW would consider that a fair compromise. And its a lot more sensible than just moaning and calling jervis johnson this that and the other.

Much less fun though.

Tournament rules have been suggested before.

I think GW's position (if Jervis's statement is in any indicative of a company line) is that they prefer to serve the ever renewed hordes of 13-year old boys rather than the grizzled vets.

Hum. I fancy another shortbread finger and THE PACKET IS EMPTY!!!

HI all.
Here is the REAL reason GW WILL NEVER produce tournament rule sets ....

IF you develop a rule set suitable for balanced competative play, you HAVE to have a provable level of imballance.
And most game systems with tournament rules have the force construction template and points value allocation calculations clearly displayed at the back of the rule book.
(Armies of Arcana is agood example of this.)

So you can make up any force you want to (within the confines of the force construction template,) and KNOW it will be ballanced with ANY force of the same PV.

And there is the reason !GW could not sell Codexes and Army books because gamers could devise and accuratley cost ANY army they wanted to.(And even use non GW -Citadel minatures!)

And without the Codexes and Army books GW belive they would lose 'control' over thier customers purchasing trends, and could not sell as many minatures.

TTFN
Lanrak.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Then the changes shouldnt be made to points, its not the only way you can adapt the rules you know.

How about disallowing certain units from tournaments. You do know that a lot of the models gw have simply have rules so that they can sell the model, if they made models purely based on game balance there would hardly be any.

Lanrak wrote:HI all.
Here is the REAL reason GW WILL NEVER produce tournament rule sets ....

IF you develop a rule set suitable for balanced competative play, you HAVE to have a provable level of imballance.
And most game systems with tournament rules have the force construction template and points value allocation calculations clearly displayed at the back of the rule book.
(Armies of Arcana is agood example of this.)

So you can make up any force you want to (within the confines of the force construction template,) and KNOW it will be ballanced with ANY force of the same PV.

And there is the reason !GW could not sell Codexes and Army books because gamers could devise and accuratley cost ANY army they wanted to.(And even use non GW -Citadel minatures!)

And without the Codexes and Army books GW belive they would lose 'control' over thier customers purchasing trends, and could not sell as many minatures.

TTFN
Lanrak.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Or it could just be because they dislike all the hate and rudeness created by the GTs, I made the mistake once about going to a tournament, I went with a simple list with no expectation to win, just to enjoy a fun game and learn how to improve, fielding an army of Necrons I managed to take out a Rus, I sead " Woo! Finally got one" laughing in a joking manner and all I got in return was "Well its to be expected when playing a cheap list like necrons!"

Very simply, tournaments are not what the game was made for, and it clearly shows that when you come here and cry because it didn't go your way or you don't like Rule X because it makes things less fair and it would require you to re-make the cheese crap list you made last year.

Ah, yes, this thread.

What I don't see is why they can't right a tight ruleset with balanced Codices. Jervis' comments on their testing process, or lack thereof, are frightening in that they don't seem to care if their game works or not.

Put it this way:

Unbalanced, untested ruleset = Tournament gamers unhappy, casual gamers don't care.
Balanced, tested ruleset = Tournament gamers happy, casual gamers don't care.

It's obvious which one is a better outcome because having balanced and well-tested rules and catering to casual gamers aren't mutually exclusive goals (despite the myth that they are perpetuated by so many here).

BYE